DCT

1:23-cv-01065

Jabaa LLC v. Publix Super Markets Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-01065, N.D. Ga., 03/13/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business in the district and having committed acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of the "Publix app" infringes a patent related to a biometric and cryptographic apparatus for securing online transactions.
  • Technical Context: The patent addresses security for online financial transactions by using a dedicated hardware peripheral to perform both biometric user authentication and cryptographic verification of the transaction parties.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges it provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of infringement via a letter dated March 8, 2023. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, an Inter Partes Review Certificate was issued for the patent-in-suit on June 24, 2025, reflecting the outcome of IPR proceedings. The certificate states that all claims of the patent (Claims 1-24) have been cancelled.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-12-23 ’637 Patent Priority Date
2009-01-20 ’637 Patent Issue Date
2023-03-08 Plaintiff sends pre-suit notice letter to Defendant
2023-03-13 Complaint Filing Date
2025-06-24 Inter Partes Review Certificate issues cancelling all claims

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,480,637 - “Internet Transaction Authentication Apparatus, Method, And System For Improving Security Of Internet Transactions”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the increasing risk of internet fraud, specifically "cloned" websites that trick users into entering sensitive data and imposters using stolen credentials (e.g., PINs, passwords) to execute unauthorized transactions (’637 Patent, col. 2:8-29).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a portable, self-contained hardware device, referred to as an Internet Transaction Authentication (ITA) apparatus, that connects to a host computer (e.g., via USB). This ITA apparatus handles the entire transaction security process internally; it biometrically authenticates the user via a built-in fingerprint sensor and also cryptographically authenticates the remote website. By consolidating these functions within the secure peripheral, the invention aims to bypass security vulnerabilities on the host computer or the open internet (’637 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:31-54).
  • Technical Importance: The technology sought to provide a "Card Present" level of security for online transactions, which have historically been treated as higher-risk "Card Not Present" transactions, by creating a non-reputable, biometrically-verified link between a specific user and a specific transaction (’637 Patent, col. 3:16-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶23).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A biometric customer authentication apparatus for improving online transaction security...
    • an electronic enclosure including a fingerprint sensor disposed thereupon and further including an external communications interface;
    • at least one processor comprised within said enclosure and coupled to said fingerprint sensor;
    • transaction security software resident within and executing on said at least one processor...;
    • at least one of a memory and a communications buffer...; and
    • a communications subsystem... for relaying data messages between at least one external system and said apparatus.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is the "Publix app" (Compl. ¶23).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant has "made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported products" that infringe, specifying that the infringement occurs in connection with the "use of the Publix app" (Compl. ¶¶22-23). The complaint alleges Defendant uses the app in an infringing manner in connection with testing and encourages its customers and end users to use the app in a manner that infringes (Compl. ¶¶23-24). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a technical analysis of the specific features or operational mechanics of the Publix app.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that infringement allegations are "detailed in the preliminary claim chart attached as Exhibit B" (Compl. ¶23). As this exhibit was not provided with the complaint, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible.

The core narrative theory is that Defendant’s "use of the Publix app" directly infringes at least claim 1 of the ’637 Patent (Compl. ¶23). The complaint quotes the full text of claim 1 but does not contain any allegations in the body of the text that map specific features of the Publix app to the claim's limitations, such as the "electronic enclosure" or "fingerprint sensor disposed thereupon" (’637 Patent, col. 8:46-49; Compl. ¶19).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A primary issue for the court would be whether a software application (the "Publix app") running on a general-purpose computing device (e.g., a customer's smartphone) can be considered a "biometric customer authentication apparatus" as claimed. The claim recites physical hardware components like "an electronic enclosure including a fingerprint sensor disposed thereupon," which the patent specification consistently illustrates as a dedicated, standalone peripheral device like a USB dongle (’637 Patent, Fig. 1A). The case would raise the question of whether the physical smartphone itself could be construed as the claimed "enclosure."
  • Technical Questions: The complaint lacks factual allegations explaining how the "Publix app" performs the functions of the claimed "transaction security software." Specifically, it does not detail how the app comprises both "biometric fingerprint authentication software" and "cryptographic transaction authentication software" that executes on a processor "comprised within said enclosure" as required by claim 1 (’637 Patent, col. 8:51-57).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "biometric customer authentication apparatus"
  • Context and Importance: The construction of this term is fundamental to the dispute. The central infringement question is whether the accused "Publix app," when used on a third-party device like a smartphone, constitutes the claimed "apparatus." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's specification appears to describe a dedicated piece of hardware, whereas the accused instrumentality is software running on general-purpose hardware.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff could argue that a general-purpose device like a smartphone, when configured by the Publix app to perform the claimed functions, becomes a specific "apparatus" for authenticating transactions. The claim language itself does not explicitly state that the apparatus must be a single-purpose device, only that it must comprise the listed elements.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant would likely point to the patent’s consistent and sole depiction of the invention as a dedicated, portable peripheral. The specification describes the invention as an "ITA apparatus" in the form of a "USB dongle" or a "wireless card," distinct from the host computer (’637 Patent, Figs. 1A, 1B). The summary of the invention describes a "small-form-factor enclosure with a USB interface connector," which may support an interpretation limiting the "apparatus" to such a peripheral device (’637 Patent, col. 3:27-29).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating Defendant encourages and instructs customers to use the Publix app in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶24). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting that the app is not a staple article of commerce and has no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶25).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant having "actual notice and knowledge" of its infringement prior to the filing of the complaint, stemming from a notice letter dated March 8, 2023 (Compl. ¶21).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  1. Claim Validity: The foremost issue is the legal status of the patent itself. The Inter Partes Review Certificate indicating that all claims of the ’637 patent have been cancelled, issued after the complaint was filed, is a case-dispositive event that likely moots the entire infringement action.
  2. Definitional Scope: Had the claims remained valid, a core issue would be one of definitional scope: could the term "apparatus", as defined and described in the patent as a dedicated hardware peripheral, be construed to read on a software application operating on a general-purpose device like a smartphone?
  3. Pleading Sufficiency: A key procedural question would be one of evidentiary sufficiency: does the complaint, which relies entirely on a missing exhibit to detail its infringement theory, provide sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief under the pleading standards established by Twombly and Iqbal?